(revised 03/16/13)
Click here for my new blog on David Crowder’s book Praise Habit, in which he teaches occultish, contemplative Lectio Divina to young teens.
———————————————————————————————–
Here’s the skinny on the heretical Emergent David Crowder and his band. David Crowder played at Willoughby Hills Friends Church, in the EFC-ER (Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region), on 09/18/11. My question is WHY? Why did this heretical musician play there?
Note – the following blog describes the Roman Catholic practices of David Crowder. But this is only the tip of Crowder’s destructive theological iceberg. Crowder is heavily promoting postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) teachings. We can see this on his website, as well as in his participation at numerous postmodern events.
Click here for the original critique, by Defending Contending, copied verbatim. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets].
Following is the Defending Contending expose:
And now the latest pockmark to appear on the already scarred face of CCM comes from one of evangelicalism’s favorite “worship leaders,” David Crowder of the David Crowder Band.
author of the contemplative-promoting book, Praise Habit (referring to the habits worn by Catholic nuns),
also participated in a contemplative/emergent conference with the likes of
Leonard Sweet, Chuck Fromm (founder of the event and of Worship Leader magazine), emerging leader Sally Morgenthaler, Brennan Manning proponent Michael W. Smith . . . contemplative/emerging Marva Dawn, Alpha Course leader and contemplative proponent Todd Hunter, and others.
(See more about this from the source Lighthouse Trails.)
But Crowder’s lack of discernment doesn’t end here. He recently granted an interview to the Roman Catholic “movement” known as Life Teen (whose promo video was previously featured on DefCon here) in which they state on their website:
Because of our deep Eucharistic devotion, Life Teen has developed a spirituality that is
- 100% Catholic
- Obedient to the Magisterium
- Centered on the Eucharist
- Scriptural
- Liturgical
- Catechetical
- Sacramental
- Focused on social justice
And:
On December 9, 2007, [at] the Feast of St. Juan Diego, we consecrated the Life Teen movement to the Blessed Virgin Mary and will renew our consecration annually by prayerfully participating in the St. Louis Marie de Montfort Total Consecration. [Emphasis theirs]
And:
Our entire ministry is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary so that we may be led to the feet of her son with the obedience she exemplified.
If you’re wondering why Crowder (or any evangelical for that matter) would grant an interview with the idolatrous Romanists whose teachings and beliefs are antithetical to biblical Christianity, wonder no more. Crowder–whose music may very well be in your car stereo or on your teenager’s ipod right now–concedes in this interview a rather interesting source of influence in the “formation of [his] faith.”
Here’s the question from the interviewer Matt Smith:
You are not Catholic, but on your “Illuminate” album, you sing a prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. What’s your connection?
Here’s the evangelical “worship leader’s” answer:
Much of the Catholic traditions and writings have been influential in my formation of faith and to be quite contradictory of what was stated earlier, I’ve found much inspiration there. St. Francis is a figure I’m equally attracted to and repelled by. I long for his powers of disassociation from the trappings of “stuff.” I’m beset with consumption and materialism, and he is a compelling symbol of contentment. His contentment and way of suffering terrify me.
You can read the whole interview here.
Let this be a warning fellow pilgrims, not all that glitters is gold, and not everything labeled “Christian,” that’s sold in “Christian” bookstores, and that’s played on “Christian” pop-music stations is what it’s purported to be.
Be cautious that you are not influenced by those who’ve been influenced by Rome. Be careful little eyes what you see; be careful little ears what you hear; and always be sure to choose your entertainment wisely.
FOR FURTHER READING
David Crowder Band Appears at Emergent YS Convention in Nashville (May 2004)
I am Roman Catholic. I do not understand your position. The Catholic Church is the church of the upper room. It’s the church that wrote the bible. It’s the church that by its own God given authority declares the canon of scripture as the word of God. She(the church) is exactly who she claims to be. I feel that you have learned about her from people who arnt catholic, and have been influenced by the prefixes still being held on to since the reformation. Please study something that is catholic like “Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” by Karl Keating. A lot of people disagree with they “think” Catholics believe! Peace!
Will, thanks for your feedback. Is it that you don’t understand my position? Or is it that you don’t accept my position? Assuming you don’t understand my position, I’ve provided some info as follows:
Regarding differences in doctrine: first of all, I think the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics is our view of salvation. A number of Catholic friends and relatives have become very angry when I have told them about John Chapter 3, in which Jesus said “you must be born again.” Why do Catholics reject the teaching that John Chapter 3 involves repenting of our sins and accepting Jesus as our Saviour? Jesus said we must be born of water AND of the Spirit (John 3:5) – yet this Catholic tract defines “born again” primarily as being baptized by water: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again.
As far as the other differences between Protestants and Catholics, they can best be summarized in the five “solas” of the Reformation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas. This Wikipedia article discusses various views by Protestants regarding the five solas; I lean toward the Wesleyan Arminian view of the five solas.
I admit: since I personally have never belonged to the Catholic church, I don’t know Catholic doctrine very well. Here are several websites by Protestants (mostly ex-Catholics), which present the differences between Protestants and Catholics:
http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/index.php?PageURL=main.htm
http://formercatholicsforchrist.com/
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/mainpage.html
http://carm.org/testimonies-ex-roman-catholic-priests
I’ll have to check out the resources you recommended. I would be interested to see if your authors tackle the issues of the five solas presented by Protestants.
Well I hope you understand my position better now – even if you don’t agree. God bless you Will, and thanks again for you feedback – Dave
Happy Ash Wednesday eve! I hope you’re excited about the Lenten season that’s literally right around the bend as we give extra attention and focus with the entire Church to dying to ourselves so that we might rise with Jesus Christ at Easter looking more like him!
Anyway, I was curious about “five solas” mentioned in your comment to Will. As a curious Catholic, I googled the phrase with an additional term so we could find out what they are and what some of the Catholic responses to them would be. After glancing through several hits that Google returned, the three mentioned below may be pages I return to later for review when I have more time. I thought you might like them:
– http://deepertruthblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/catholic-defender-tackles-five-solas.html
– http://www.catholicbible101.com/thefivesolas.htm
– http://www.aboutcatholics.com/community/viewtopic.php?id=1479
P.S. I don’t understand why some Catholics would be offended at your claim that one must be born by baptism. Jesus did say, as you mentioned, we must be born again by water and spirit. Even Saint Peter says that we’re now saved by baptism!
P.S.S. Following the pattern of many of my Catholics being brilliant former non-Catholic Christians, Jimmy Akin ranks among the top Catholics on my list. In http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm, he addresses one of the five solas (mentioned in the URL). You might like him if you like people that are thorough and can weave together thoughts to back up a point or what not.
Hae, thanks for the feedback and the list of Catholic links regarding the five solas. I’m glad to hear there are Catholic scholars and theologians that are addressing these. I’ll be reading through these to prepare a response.
On another topic: how ironic that you mentioned Ash Wednesday. I’m not sure how much you’ve read about the postmodern (Emerging, Emergent and Emergence) movements with the Protestant denominations. Many postmodern Protestant denominations (mainline/liberal as well as evangelical) are getting increasingly involved in Spiritual Formation (which quotes many Catholic mystics), as well as Ash Wednesday, Lent, Advent, and other liturgical “holy days” first practiced in Roman Catholicism. My point is, more and more Protestant churches are “giving in” to Catholic teachings and practices, not vice versa. Which brings us back to the five solas. Protestant church leaders, who have traditionally held to the five solas, are presenting more and more practices from Catholicism, which does not hold to the five solas. As a Protestant who believes the five solas are the true teachings of God’s Word, I find this very troubling.
Well, it will be interesting to see if we can engage in a discussion/debate without being destructive/ argumentative on the one extreme, yet compromising our believes on the other extreme (it doesn’t sound like either one of us is going to give in on these issues). Thanks again for your feedback, and God bless you – Dave
God bless you, too, sir! And a very happy Ash Wednesday and Lent to you as well!
Thanks so much for responding.
To be honest, unless you’re anti-Catholic, I don’t think you have much to worry about. As a Catholic, I don’t see our separated brethren becoming Catholic just because they’re adopting some of the traditional practices that date before the schisms that the Church has suffered. I actually see the ‘movement’ you mentioned among non-Catholic Christian churches as simply expressing a desire to draw ever more near to the Lord. After all, that’s what the various seasons in the liturgical year are all about as it can get difficult to think and mediate upon the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ every single moment of every day.
I think Father John Riccardo said it best on I believe last Thursday’s “Christ Is The Answer” on Ave Maria Radio regarding the reason for Lent. Paraphrased, he said that the purpose of the season is really simple – it’s so that we pay extra attention to dying to ourselves over the course of the next forty-some days so we rise with Christ Jesus and looking more like him on Easter. If we don’t strive for that end goal, the season is a complete waste of time for us. Granted, we ought to die to ourselves and pick up our cross and follow after our King and Lord every day if we want to be his disciples and be with him, but it’s an incredible opportunity to have a period of time where we give extra attention to what we’ll hopefully do every day for the rest of our lives. I guess it’s like celebrating Father’s / Mother’s Day, one’s birthday, etc. We really should celebrate everyone every moment of every day as they are God’s blessing and gift to us, but we give extra attention and focus more on them on a day “set aside” to celebrate and honor them.
Have a blessed day and season!
Hae, I appreciate your kind and thoughtful words – I can see you always put a lot of thought into preparing your comments.
I do feel the need to clarify a few things from my point of view. First, regarding your comment about “unless you’re anti-Catholic”: I am anti-Catholic. Not in a vicious, destructive way, but doctrinally. As mentioned previously, my “beef” is that Catholics do not hold to the five solas. Let me summarize my anti-Catholicism this way: I believe the five solas represent true Christianity. So any religion or denomination that does not hold to the five solas is a false Christianity and nonchristian in my opinion. Catholicism does not hold to the five solas, ergo Catholicism is a false Christianity and nonchristian. I’m sure this sounds harsh, but I did not come up with this – it is the position of the Protestant Reformation. (BTW, my wife grew up Catholic – and left Catholicism over various teachings that she struggled with – so we still have “civil” discussions with my wife’s Catholic relatives from time to time.)
Now in response to this comment you made: “As a Catholic, I don’t see our separated brethren becoming Catholic just because they’re adopting some of the traditional practices that date before the schisms that the Church has suffered. I actually see the ‘movement’ you mentioned among non-Catholic Christian churches as simply expressing a desire to draw ever more near to the Lord…”
Regarding postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) Protestant churches “adopting some of the traditional practices” of Roman Catholicism: I agree these postmodern churches are not promulgating a return to pre-modern Roman Catholicism. But what postmodern Protestants – as well as postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) Catholics – ARE doing is this. They are using Catholic practices as a stepping stone or gateway to several ungodly, anti-Christian goals which have nothing to do with traditional Catholicism. Namely, 1) Eastern meditation, and 2) the Interfaith Movement. (They are working toward other goals as well, but these are the two biggies in my opinion.) Several postmodern Catholics who drawing Protestants and traditional Catholics in this direction are Catholic/Buddhist monk Thomas Merton and Father Richard Rohr.
As a biblical scholar with a Master’s in Old Testament theology, as will as a postmodernist, I would love to what specifics about Crowder’s theology you find in error BESIDES the fact that he affiliates with postmodernism and Catholicism. In other words, what doctrine do you her him promote (in either song, book or interview) that you find heretical?
Thanks for the feedback, Cre. I’m not sure what can be said or written, other than what has already been said or written about David Crowder’s heresies. (My blog already mentions some specifics.) If he holds to any postmodern teachings he is heretical, and if he holds to any Catholic teachings he is heretical. I’m sure this sounds harsh, but this is my view as a fundamentalist born again Protestant holding to the Five Solas.
As far as additional specifics, I’ll do some searching for more articles detailing Crowder’s specific doctrinal heresies (in song, book or interview).
On a more practical note, you aroused my curiousity. From one scholar to another: you mentioned above that you are “a biblical scholar with a Master’s in Old Testament theology, as will as a postmodernist.” I’m wondering the denomination of the seminary you attended, and what denomination you currently minister in, if any.
I myself grew up in a Wesleyan Holiness denomination; some churches my family attended were fundamentalist, others were New Evangelical. The denomination’s churches today are mostly Emerging or Emergent. I attended a seminary on the liberal side of New Evangelical (before it got heavily involved in Spiritual Formation). I received a Masters degree there, in Christian Education. In recent years I have swung from New Evangelicalism back towards fundamentalism. I would label myself as “born again separatist fundamentalist Spirit filled Wesleyan Holiness.” I’m not ministering anywhere currently; I write this blog as a discernment ministry.
God bless you – Dave
P.S.: I try not to give too many personal details (schools I attended, years attended, etc.). I’ve experienced identity theft, and try to be very cautious regarding details I give out on the Internet.
I’m a little confused as to why you would choose to write an article specifically devoted to calling out David Crowder as heretical, and yet, when asked what specific errors you find in him, you come up blank and say you’ll get back to us. There is a pretty big issue with just calling people out in the public sphere without very good reason- watch yourself. David Crowder’s music has made a big difference spiritually for many people, do you really want to attack that ministry without a rock-solid reason? I’m not saying that I think you’re necessarily wrong on the entire matter, I’m just saying, be careful what you post, because it often times can work to vilify people who actually have extremely effective ministries.
Josh, it seems to me we’re going around in circles a bit here. I thought my issues with David Crowder were pretty obvious. And in my mind at least, I did provide specifics. Such as:
– Crowder is comfortable having ecumenical ties with Catholics and postmoderns (Emerging/Emergents)
– He is comfortable with Catholic teachings and practices (I believe these are heretical)
– He is comfortable with postmoderns (Emerging/Emergents)(I believe these are heretical)
– He endorses contemplative practices such as Lectio Divina (I believe these are heretical and occultish)
As far as having extremely effective ministries, how would you define “extremely effective”? Yes, postmodern musicians such as David Crowder seem to have helped lots of people in their “Christian walk”. But would Crowder and other postmodern musicians feel comfortable singing the lyrics of hymns about the Blood of Jesus – or would they cringe? I’m guessing they would cringe, would shy completely from singing them, saying they’re offensive to nonchristian “seekers”. Click here for a list of 53 such hymns: http://cyberhymnal.org/top/jc/jcblood.htm
Here are a few such hymns:
“The Old Rugged Cross”
“There is a Fountain Filled With Blood”
“There is Power in the Blood”
Paul wrote: “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (I Cor. 2:2)
And later Paul wrote: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8)
Question – in his music, does Crowder focus on the blood of Jesus and the message of salvation, saving those who repent of their sins? Does he mention eternal torment, or the One who saves us from eternal torment when we accept Him and become born again? Does he give altar calls, calling sinners to turn from their sins and repent? THIS is what I call a truly effective Christian ministry. And it’s the only ministry which lines up with I Cor. 2:2 and Gal. 1:8, quoted above.
To summarize, I realize there are many CCM musicians who seem to reach lots of people. But if their music is not extremely salvation-focused (on what I call “the Blood and the Cross”), I would say they do not have extremely effective ministries.
Josh, feel free to tell me where I’m wrong. Thanks again for your thoughts, and God bless you – Dave
I’ve frequently heard Crowder’s lyrics EXCLAIM the message of salvation. (ie. “We’re resting in the shadow of the cross”, “Spare us, O God”, etc.) I think you may have missed the fact that almost all of his most recent album, Give Us Rest, is comprised of older hymn-style songs. He’s definitely proven that he feels comfortable singing these kinds of songs. But with all due respect, I feel a bit troubled by your implication that unless he sings traditional hymns than he is not truly speaking the message of the Gospel. In many of his songs, he utilizes metaphor and analogy to weave together a beautiful narrative representing the Gospel to his listeners. This, when examined on the deeper level, is actually quite beautiful! It’s so worshipful because he is not simply reciting songs that have been sang for many generations, he is inventing new ones to artistically proclaim the name of Jesus in a beautiful way! That’s the whole motivation of my aspiration to make films, is to artistically proclaim the love that I have in my heart that has been given to me by Jesus because He loved me first. Just please, don’t be so quick to judge the contents of a man’s soul and ministry by one interview. That’s already been done, many times, and it doesn’t get us anywhere.
Again, we’re going around in circles I think, Josh. Basically, we’re not going to agree on Crowder.
You’re right – I stand corrected – Crowder has modernized a number of hymns in a beautiful way. I’m not saying Crowder doesn’t have beautiful music. It does sound great. I also like the sound and the lyrics of John Michael Talbot, Rich Mullins, etc. BUT I can no longer endorse these and many others. John Michael Talbot is Roman Catholic, and the late Rich Mullins supported the heretical teachings of the late Brennan Manning (specifically, his “Ragamuffin Gospel” book).
Bottom line – you do have a point. There are many Christian musicians out there that do indeed sing great lyrics. But everything in their lives needs to line up: 1) what they sing, 2) what they truly believe, and 3) how they live their daily lives. Call me narrow minded and judgmental if you wish 🙂 – but I believe Crowder and many others fall short on points #2 and #3. I will not endorse anyone who is comfortable with ecumenism, Roman Catholicism, postmodernism, and contemplative prayer (Spiritual Formation) – no matter how great their music sounds or how wonderful their lyrics are.
And don’t forget – Crowder, etc. do not mention Hell/the Lake of Fire/eternal torment, do not call sinners to repentance by focusing on “the Blood and the Cross”, and do not have altar calls. At least I haven’t heard of them doing this…
A Christian musician I do like is the late Keith Green. He was closely tied to the late David Wilkerson, whom I also admired. Both of these men preached born again gospel messages, and gave many warnings/ admonitions to evangelical Christians. I would be curious what you think of Keith Green, David Wilkerson, and others like them.
Thanks again for your comments Josh. I do appreciate the back and forth correspondence (hopefully I’m not being too harsh – I always try to avoid personal attacks on my readers). God bless you – Dave
I actually LOVE Keith Green. I’m so surprised that you mentioned him- I’ve read “No Compromise” and loved it, and I very frequently listen to his music. Little note, in his recent album Crowder does mention the “day of wrath” in pretty good detail, and although I don’t think he uses the word Hell, he does a pretty clear job of alluding to it with a guitar sound we all commonly associate with Hell. You’re right in that he doesn’t have altar calls, at least not in what I’ve seen, but I would have to say, I think that might be getting a little too legalistic. I feel that with his style of music, it’d be a little strange to do an altar call. He seems to be making music for the heart, and so it is not always direct worship. It tends to be that way, I believe, because he has Jesus in his heart, and the natural overflow of that comes out in artistic expression. But in reality, it does minister very effectively to make music that doesn’t necessarily directly call upon the listener to action, but plants seeds and stirs up people’s hearts. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that everything in a Christian musician’s life must line up. However, I feel that we aren’t well equipped to be able to perform such analysis on Crowder, as neither of us have actually met the man, and so we only have what is publicly known of him and his lyrical content. Based on that, I would say that there isn’t enough information. I have not heard anything about his ministry efforts outside of his music; however, it’s quite possible that he, following along with what Jesus teaches about not fasting to get attention and look good, has ministry efforts that he tries not to publicly proclaim about himself. All this being said, I’m fairly certain we agree theologically and such on most everything. My only remaining issue is just the fact that this article was published for all the world to see, and even though we don’t have this inside information onto whether or not Crowder lives out what he sings, this article paints him out as if we personally know him or have good supply of information that informs us of why we should maybe avoid his teachings. Honestly, despite his comments you mentioned about Catholicism, I would say regardless of whether or not he is Catholic, hearing him articulate his faith in Jesus and not making an issue out of it makes me wonder if he is a Catholic in all truth, or if he just appreciates some aspects of their style. (ie. Mass structure, use of Latin, reverence for saints, etc.) To be completely honest, I too can appreciate these elements of the Catholic ministry style. I definitely have a list of disagreements with them on theological issues, and I don’t necessarily believe that their style exactly helps the most people to understand the heart of God most effectively, but I can appreciate the beauty of the language of Latin, and the beauty of honoring wise folks from our history. (I don’t agree with praying to saints though.)
All I’m saying is just that we need to not necessarily see his comments as what we want to hear, but actually what they are. If I’m not mistaken, he never actually said he believes in the practice of or actively prays to the saints. I’m under the belief that Catholics are still just part of a very misguided church, and so we can’t just completely disregard them, we need to work together to help them, as they’re very distant relatives in the faith. Likewise, it’s possible these efforts by Crowder to appreciate Catholicism are to help remove some of the hateful stigmas Protestantism has unfortunately hurled at Catholics, causing the worldwide church to be less and less likely to become united. Does that make sense? Again, this is a great conversation and whereas I disagree with your action of posting the article, I very much appreciate this conversation, and I respect you for being honest and helpful! 🙂
Thanks for the detailed comments, Josh – lots to digest. I do like many of your comments.
As far as David Crowder, I’ll stand by my warning to stay away from him – in view of the fact that many others have described him as heretical. Many hits came up when I Googled the search string [“David Crowder” “heretical”].
Here are a few links I’ve found, that mention a number of good and bad Contemporary Christian musicians:
http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?96722-The-dirty-little-secret
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=45780&forum=35&start=10&19
Many of today’s postmodern musicians – including David Crowder – are associating with the Passion conferences – which I would stay far, far away from. Many postmodern names at these annual events. Here’s the latest: http://worshipleader.com/passion2013/ Those who have researched postmoderns should be able to see the dangers in the Passion movement and its musicians.
Well that’s it for now, Josh. God bless you – Dave
Where in the bible does it talk about the five solas, or was that just a man made tradition.
Good question, Tyler. Short answer: the theology behind the Five Solas can be found in the Bible, but the Five Solas themselves are not “listed one through five” anywhere in the Bible. In the same way, the theology behind the Trinity can be find in the Bible, even though the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible. (For that matter, nor is the word “Bible” found in the Bible.)
Here is one of many good articles on the Five Solas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae.
Well that’s it for now. God bless you – Dave
Thanks for the reply and the article, but I can’t seem to find any backing in scripture for sola scriptura from the Wikipedia article you gave. Do you have scripture verses? Why is one man’s interpretation valued over others? Why are there so many different interpretations if scripture interprets scripture? I’m sorry for the questions, but I’m struggling to understand this as an evangelical Christian.
Thanks for the feedback, Tyler. Frankly, I’m wondering where you’re coming from (i.e. what denomination you prefer or belong to) as an evangelical Christian. Most born again evangelical Christians I know have no problem whatsoever with the teaching of Sola Scriptura. And personally, I have no problem with the teaching of Sola Scriptura either. By the way, I noticed you did not mention the other four Solas. Is Sola Scriptura the only one you’re having issues with?
Here’s my take on what Sola Scriptura means: Sola Scriptura means that the Holy Bible, God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Word, holds primary and total authority in all matters of Christian faith and doctrine. No other document, teaching or individual (i.e. extrabiblical primary sources) has more authority than the Bible. I do not take Sola Scriptura to mean that we avoid all books, sermons, etc. from persons other than the Bible. Rather, I take Sola Scriptura to mean those who interpret the Bible look to the Bible as their source, their authority, their “Teacher”, their “Rock”. Granted, there can be various interpretations, but common sense tells us there can only be one correct interpretation. In fact, God’s Word tells us this here:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (II Tim. 2:15)
In addition, here are several excellent articles on Sola Scriptura. The second article lists a number of Bible passages documenting the teaching of Sola Scriptura:
http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
Again, it would help if you could give some more specifics concerning your position. For example, are there some extrabiblical (“outside of the Holy Bible”) sources you would look to as equally authoritative with the Bible (or more authoritative than the Bible)? I understand you are an evangelical Christian. But in the case of Roman Catholics, for example, they take the Church teachings (the Church Fathers, Popes, etc.) as having equal if not greater authority than the Bible.
Hoping to hear back from you – I always enjoy a good conversation. God bless you – Dave
Wow, there is so much here, I’m afraid I might run out of room. Perhaps I can condense and generalize points. First, I was born and raised in the evangelical bible church tradition, where I presently remain. Theology and history has always been a huge interest to me, so naturally I was lead to exploring the Catholic Church and it’s positions, especially on the five solas. I like to view things without subjective or with bias persuasion. So for the search of truth I give everyone a fair chance to defend themselves from their own mouths. Thus, as part of my study I relied on Catholic sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rather than evangelical sites or perspectives. I think you would agree there is a lot of merit in this approach, as differences in terminology and misunderstandings can come from either side. With that said, with easy browsing through the catechism, a lot of the accusations you and your sources make against the RCC are plainly refuted. This scares me, because I love my faith and those in it, but I feel as though I have been lied to, and continuously so with every passing argument, speculation and accusation against the RCC. Let me explain: you said, “But in the case of Roman Catholics, for example, they take the Church teachings (the Church Fathers, Popes, etc.) as having equal if not greater authority than the Bible.” Meanwhile, the Catechism clearly says “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal…”
And “82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
By the way, the word tradition here is referring only to that which was handed down from CHRIST, to the apostles who were given the authority to preach what Christ taught orally.
On to your first article, I must say I was very disappointed in the author’s arguments here. There’s so much to be said, but I’ll just address the main issues. I agree with the author when he says the Bible is authoritative, God-breathed, inerrant and especially when he states “the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura”. Interesting. His main argument in this paragraph is that the RCC has apostolic traditions that go against the bible, yet the RCC argues that they go hand in hand, meaning in a way the RCC is in compliance with the author’s argument making it null and void. The RCC has also said traditions do not contradict scripture, but rather are “bound closely together.” Again, disproving the author’s accusations. Finally, in a laughable attempt to answer the RCC’s position that the bible was not around or readily available for 1500 years, he claims the RCC or early Christians did not make a valiant effort to producing copies of scripture. What about the monasteries, in which monks spent their entire lives hand writing scripture! His points here are unfounded and he presents absolutely nothing to back it up. As a narrow minded, hard–hearted (and headed) evangelical, this would be fine, but as a scholar searching for truth, not so much.
The second source you provided presents several bible verses that claim to “prove” sola scriptura. Yet, your first article claimed this was not possible. The most compelling argument the author made here was when he said Jesus used only scripture to defend truth, and not oral tradition. How could Jesus use scripture, as we know it today, when it had not yet been written? Obviously, he was referring to scripture from the Jewish faith, i.e. the OT. So are we to only refer to OT alone? Point being, this argument does not defend scripture alone, as in the Bible alone. Also, I love how he supports what the Catechism says in this point and then bashes Orthodox and Catholics in the same breath, “Acts 17:11-12: Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of scripture! Unlike the apostles, Catholics and Orthodox would never send you to scripture, since they don’t think you could even understand it!” Where does he get the last bit? I’m pretty sure that both churches use scripture and even encourage people to read their bibles.
Which brings me to some points that were not addressed by either of the resources: i.e. who compiled the bible and upon what authority? If we were to rely on scripture alone as the sole authority, why are there 45,000 and growing denominations? Did everyone misinterpret: 1 Corinthians 1:10
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
When the reformation came, so did division. It saddens me that Martin Luther did not in fact reform the Church, but rather deformed it, eventually into 45,000 little pieces and my upbringing being a product of this division. This has forced me to reconcile what I was taught with that of the truth. It is a hard place to be, but as I grow in my understanding, God willing I will someday cross the Tiber and be unified with His church, the Catholic Church. God Bless you my brother in Christ!
Thank you, Tyler, for your detailed explanation and defense of your position. I’m glad to hear your explanation/refutation of Sola Scriptura from the RCC/Orthodox point of view. It seems we have reached an impass here doctrinally, but again I am glad for the discussion – it is representative of the classic debate between the RCC and Protestants over the Five Solas (particularly Sola Scriptura).
I’ll leave this open for yourself and others to comment, on both sides of the issue. I’m sure there are many readers who are more knowledgable about this topic than myself!
Tyler, I am wondering what the term “evangelical Christian” means to you. Specifically, once a person becomes RCC (as you are considering), can they still retain the label “evangelical Christian”? I personally would only use this term for born again Protestants, since this is how the term “evangelical Christian” has been used over most of the past century. Frankly, the use of the term “evangelical Christian” threw me off regarding where you were coming from (there was no hint that you espouse any RCC views).
It sounds like you have already made up your mind, but I would strongly discourage you from joining the RCC. Not only does the RCC equate Church teachings with the authority of the Bible (as you stated above), but many teachings of the RCC are extremely heretical and actually contradict biblical teachings. For example, I believe many RCC people are in Hell today because they fell for the RCC teaching of baptismal regeneration (including the baptism of infants). These people would say they were “born again”, but the RCC definition of born again is vastly different from what John Chapter 3 teaches.
Another extremely heretical teaching is the veneration of Mary and the saints. And worse yet, the teaching that Mary is Coredemptrix with Christ. Jesus said He is the only way to the Father!
Growing up in a Bible church, you can certainly see where I’m coming from.
Well that’s it for now. God bless you – Dave
Thanks for the quick response, Dave! I am rather dismayed that you have closed our discussion on sola scriptura without addressing my two questions: Who compiled the bible and upon what authority? If we were to rely on scripture alone as the sole authority, why are there 45,000 and growing denominations? Instead, you bring up totally different points against the Catholic Church. By the way, can we stop calling it the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for a more appropriate term, like simply “Catholic Church”? There are many different rites within the Catholic Church, not just Roman (Latin), who professes the same beliefs and follows the magesterium: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabar. Or is your beef just with the Roman Rite and Orthodoxy since you fail to mention any of the other rites under the magesterium? Sorry for the digression, but I think it’s important to label things correctly. Speaking of labels, you asked if I could still be called an “evangelical Christian” since I don’t refute Catholic beliefs. In the contemporary and popular use of the term, I probably cannot anymore. However, I do follow, and believe in the authority of the Bible, and I am a follower of Christ, so in that sense, I was and will always be an Evangelical Christian.
Lastly, you bring up several disagreements against the Catholic Church, which as I am fully aware are popular objections. I assume you did this, because this is what you have to resort to when there are questions you cannot answer. I myself had the same objections and did the same things. With that said, I feel as though we would be diving deeper and further away from the original discussion. But, I will say that it wasn’t until my discovery of the early Church Fathers and through historical and biblical sources did I find that everything you mentioned was practiced and believed by the early Christians. Even Martin Luther, the author of the 5 solas, believed in Baptism Regeneration! Do you reckon he’s in hell with the other Catholics? Infant baptism is also practiced amongst numerous protestant groups. I will leave you with a quote from an Anglican priest/scholar and convert to the Catholic Church, “to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.” -Cardinal Newman
Thanks for your response, Tyler. Sorry for the confusion – I am very much open to discussing this further. Perhaps I can rephrase this as follows:
In addition to responding to your future comments, I hope to leave this open for yourself and others to comment, on both sides of the issue. I’m sure there are many readers who are more knowledgable about this topic than myself and can add their comments to our own.
Sorry for not responding to your original two questions. Here are my answers, in short:
1) Who compiled the bible and upon what authority? Short answer – As I’m sure you know, Protestant doctrine teaches that various men of God over the centuries were inspired of God to write down His Word. I consider the Canon of God’s Word to consist of 66 books, and these books fit together perfectly like puzzle pieces, in spite of numerous “scribes”.
2) If we were to rely on scripture alone as the sole authority, why are there 45,000 and growing denominations? Short answer – my guess is that there probably have been many more factions, groups and denominations than 45,000 over the centuries. Be that as it may, I think we are dealing with two different issues here. a) Sola Scriptura states that we look to Scripture (God’s Word the Bible) as our primary authority. b) There are many reasons new denominations, factions and groups can form. Some of the reasons: differences in polity, personality differences in leadership, squabbles over unclear eschatology (such as the timing of the Rapture), etc. And – key point – many of these denominations, factions and groups do believe in Sola Scriptura. They share the common belief in the priority of Scripture over all other primary historical documents, yet interpret certain passages in different ways.
Yes, it makes sense to drop the RCC abbreviation. It does appear that all the groups you mentioned fall under the same umbrella, as you said, groups “who [profess] the same beliefs and [follow] the magesterium”. If all these groups oppose the Five Solas, then yes, I and other Five Sola “defenders” would have a beef with them.
I realize there are other issues you raised that I have not addressed. I will try to respond to your comments in further detail as I have time. God bless you – Dave
As always, thanks for allowing me to respond and for entertaining my questions. I realize that one must be well versed in both Catholic and Protestant theology, history and especially terminology to answer and defend these positions. With that said, It may be best to wait, as you said, for someone more knowledgeable on these subjects to contribute. Otherwise, the debate will eventually bear no fruit.
Tyler, I have really enjoyed your discussion. I did not see an answer to your question referring to the compilation of the bible OT & NT other than in a very generic way………(Men………..Peter (the first pope did make a few contributions……I think he wrote a couple of letters didn’t he? I think most of the writers have their name at the beginning of their writings…………where they just men dave? I think they were presbyters, bishops, etc in that church you don’t like. The one that Jesus appointed Peter to lead (changed his name to Rock essentially) and gave the Keys to the Kingdom, gave him power to bind and lose (small detail) and told him hell would not prevail against her (his bride the church)……………hmmm Praying for you both
Thanks for your comments, Alicia. I doubt Peter would have considered himself the first Pope – seems to me the Catholic Church relegated him to this position. Also, Protestant theologians would say that when He said “the rock” Jesus was referring to Himself (although I admit Peter was leading the service at the “first official church event” – the Day of Pentecost). I.e. the true Church is built on Christ not Peter. Here’s an article that presents my view of various aspects of Roman Catholicism: http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html (I like that the article takes a strong stance without overusing so-called “hate language”.) BTW it’s unlikely that anyone here will be converted from Protestantism to Catholicism (or vice versa). Still, I am enjoying the discussion. Well that’s it for now. God bless you – Dave P.S.: I realize I’ve still left some questions unanswered – hopefully I’ll find time soon to respond to these.